But he was winning and it would have to been the dumbest guy on earth to think he could get away with it. I don't think it's obvious at all that he did it based on what we've been allowed to know and in fact I just read that the Russians have put together a 1000 page report indicating that it's the rebels.

And I'm of the belief you don't start a war based on speculation. So they say they think the rebels don't have access to such weapons but is that really enough to bomb the crap out of the place and kill a lot of innocent people in the process? Where is the cold hard evidence that it was their government? While we're speculating, to me, it makes no sense for it to be them. What do they gain? They saw what happened to Sadaam after evidence of WMDs; which turned out to be bogus evidence.

To me this stinks of Iraq 2003 all over again. At least then Canada stayed out of it.

Regardless of whether chemical weapons have been used, someone should have gone in and put a stop to Bashar a long time ago. He has his military shoot at crowds of protesters for god sakes. He's killed thousands and thousands of people in the last 2 years. Nothing bogus about that. Those are facts.

My question is this, why does the US want to go into Syria? Are they worried about the Citizens of Syria being gassed? I wonder, how worried they are about the hundreds of thousands of people murdered in Africa or Sri Lanka. Not much I guess, no resources there.

At some point, and you see it happening now with a 90% disapproval rate by US citizens on this latest fiasco, people are going to catch on to the horrible bullshit the US, the Brits, Canada, etc have been feeding them about their imminent safety or lack thereof. You can only use the same BS excuses for so long. What is going on in those regions is indeed wrong, I agree, but the motivations for attacks have ZERO to do with any kind of compassion. ZERO. And thats why nobody wants to go but the guys in charge who don't have to pick up a gun.

Craig wins. There are horrendous things going on in Africa that you don't ever see on T.V. or hear politicians address. This isn't about the people of Syria. If Obama cared about people he wouldn't be ignoring the fact that 91% of his people are against going in there. If he cared about people he wouldn't be essentially telling the media that congress is there to support him and not the citizens they're supposed to represent. If he cared about people he wouldn't wreck America's youth by sending them into pointless conflicts and then deny them proper medical care when they come home as damaged goods. If he cared about people he wouldn't pump billions upon billions into the army when their economy is crumbling and the country continues to be deindustrialized. I could go on but you get where I'm going with this.

This has never been solely about US intervention. Its the Worlds responsibility to do something.
And while you're right in saying that Africa has been suffering for a long time, that still doesn't mean that something shouldn't be done in Syria. Two wrongs don't make a right.

This has never been solely about US intervention. Its the Worlds responsibility to do something.
And while you're right in saying that Africa has been suffering for a long time, that still doesn't mean that something shouldn't be done in Syria. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Maybe but those congress men who have seen the so called evidence are saying it's extremely weak:

The administration’s public case for chemical weapons use by the Syrian government is extremely weak, and former high-level intelligence officers say that publicly-available information proves that the Syrian government likely did not carry out the chemical weapons attacks.

The Obama administration claims that classified intelligence proves that it was the Assad government which carried out the attacks.

But numerous congressional members who have seen the classified intelligence information say that it is no better than the public war brief … and doesn’t prove anything.

Congressman Justin Amash said last week:

What I heard in Obama admn briefing actually makes me more skeptical of certain significant aspects of Pres’s case for attacking

He noted yesterday, after attending another classified briefing and reviewing more classified materials:

If Americans could read classified docs, they’d be even more against #Syria action. Obama admn’s public statements are misleading at best.

Congressman Tom Harkin said:

I have just attended a classified Congressional briefing on Syria that quite franklyraised more questions than it answered. I found the evidence presented by Administration officials to be circumstantial.

Congressman Michael Burgess said:

Yes, I saw the classified documents. They were pretty thin.

Yahoo News reports:

New Hampshire Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, for instance, left Thursday’s classified hearing and said she was opposed to the effort “now so more than ever.”

“I think there’s a long way to go for the president to make the case,” she said after the briefing. “It does seem there is a high degree of concern and leaning no.”

Senator Joe Manchin announced he was voting “no” for a Syria strike right after hearing a classified intelligence brieifng.

Congressman Alan Grayson points out in the New York Times:

The documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. I’m not allowed to tell you what’s in the classified summary, but you can draw your own conclusion. [I.e. it was no more impressive than the 4-page public version.]

On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was “no.”

The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, “social media” postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached — not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn’t possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)

***

And yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately depicted the underlying evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or to the American public.

In fact, even gaining access to just the classified summary involves a series of unreasonably high hurdles.

We have to descend into the bowels of the Capitol Visitors Center, to a room four levels underground. Per the instructions of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, note-taking is not allowed.

Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided.

And this is just the classified summary. It is my understanding that the House Intelligence Committee made a formal request for the underlying intelligence reports several days ago. I haven’t heard an answer yet. And frankly, I don’t expect one.

How reliable is this source? Isn't this "bleacher report" of politics?

That's where research comes in. Don't you double check what you believe in or do you take everything who hear on TV at face value and choose to only question everything else?

These guys break stories long before they're out in the mainstream, mega corporation controlled, media. Also consider the magnitude of what they're saying and the potential consequences if they're untruthful. Finally, if you've done the research then my apologies but please enlighten me as to why they're unreliable?

For me personally, I find I get to the truth far more confidently when I am reading sources who:

A.) Provided all their backup and tell you where to check it out for yourself.
B.) Answer to no one but the laws of the land. Defamation is a serious charge that no one wants to face, wouldn't you agree?

Maybe but those congress men who have seen the so called evidence are saying it's extremely weak:Source: Infowars.com

But again, this is really only looking at it from the US point of view, and not the rest of the World/UN.
And on top of that, its almost exclusively the opinion of Congressmen who are Republicans.
They'd oppose Obama even if he wanted to give them a Free Boat.

The US is in a completely different discussion than the rest of the world. As always.

I read only a couple days ago that German intelligence said it wasn't Assad. UK Parliament voted against going in there. Russia strongly opposes it, released 1000 page report on why it wasn't the Syria government, and is looking to have Assad's weapons confiscated as a compromise.

That actually makes the most sense to me. Have them turn over what they have, that takes care of any fear of immediate danger to people while this is sorted out and it prevents innocent people being killed by American bombings.

The world is clearly split on this and the evidence that has been presented has been weak. People are speculating based on what we've seen. What most conclude is that no one is at risk outside of Syria but if America goes in it triggers an Iran/Israel war and the whole middle east goes up in flames. I hope cooler head prevail.

I read only a couple days ago that German intelligence said it wasn't Assad. UK Parliament voted against going in there. Russia strongly opposes it, released 1000 page report on why it wasn't the Syria government, and is looking to have Assad's weapons confiscated as a compromise.

That actually makes the most sense to me. Have them turn over what they have, that takes care of any fear of immediate danger to people while this is sorted out and it prevents innocent people being killed by American bombings.

The world is clearly split on this and the evidence that has been presented has been weak. People are speculating based on what we've seen. What most conclude is that no one is at risk outside of Syria but if America goes in it triggers an Iran/Israel war and the whole middle east goes up in flames. I hope cooler head prevail.

Russia opposes it because they are literally Syria's biggest ally.

And again, this isn't really about the threat to civilians outside of Syria.. this is about liberating the people of Syria.
Just like Libya. Only Libya wasn't nearly the Human Rights Atrocity that Syria is.

Maybe but those congress men who have seen the so called evidence are saying it's extremely weak:Source: Infowars.com

That's where research comes in. Don't you double check what you believe in or do you take everything who hear on TV at face value and choose to only question everything else?

These guys break stories long before they're out in the mainstream, mega corporation controlled, media. Also consider the magnitude of what they're saying and the potential consequences if they're untruthful. Finally, if you've done the research then my apologies but please enlighten me as to why they're unreliable?

For me personally, I find I get to the truth far more confidently when I am reading sources who:

A.) Provided all their backup and tell you where to check it out for yourself.
B.) Answer to no one but the laws of the land. Defamation is a serious charge that no one wants to face, wouldn't you agree?

I do always check if I find news intriguing. It was a general question as I'm unfamiliar with N.American news media and wanted to hear from you as you guys know better.

Well in my opinion, if you want all the facts and not a filtered, inaccurate account, you have to go to place like Infowars or Drudge Report.

You're not getting credible reporting any more on TV and there seems to be little accountability when they misinform us.

joey_hesketh wrote:

Russia opposes it because they are literally Syria's biggest ally.

And again, this isn't really about the threat to civilians outside of Syria.. this is about liberating the people of Syria.
Just like Libya. Only Libya wasn't nearly the Human Rights Atrocity that Syria is.

Right because Iraq and Libya are so much better because of America's love bombings.

What happened to diplomacy? It's pretty bad when Russia seems to be the voice of reason. I really think if they storm in there its the signal of WW3. This time everybody has nukes so do the math, it equals something downright terrifying.